Medical Mind Control [back] Medical study ploys
'The technique of infamy is to invent two lies and to get people to argue heatedly over which one of them is true.'--Ezra Pound
[Allopathic created and controlled system of dubious science that tests only (mostly useless) allopathic medicine while keeping out any competition. Monopoly medicine.]
See: Peer review
[2017 Feb] Forbes Leads Media Attack Against Turmeric's Health Benefits ''What Mr. Leminick is referring here to as “evidence,” or the lack thereof, is the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, human clinical trial (RCT). The RCT has become the epistemiological holy grail of Scientism and the Medical Monotheism it informs. In this belief system, it doesn’t matter if something has had cross-cultural validation as a healing agent, even after thousands of years of safe human use; nor does it matter if you personally have experienced (N-of-1) direct and measurable health benefits from consuming it. This is essentially a pyramidal control system: the RCT situated on top, and your first-hand experience and associated “anecdotal claims" on bottom, completely worthless. What's considered 'really real' is what has been externally validated through the RCT. Also worthless within this view are the thousands of cell (in vitro) and animal (in vivo) studies that exist indicating therapeutic properties may exist. This Scientism-based belief system is so powerful and all-consuming that sometimes I describe it as the 'Religion that devours all others.''
[2012 June] Skewed Results? Failure to Account for Clinical Trial Drop-Outs Can Lead to Erroneous Findings in Top Medical Journals Up to a third of clinical trials studied that found an intervention effective might, in fact, be wrong
[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He
charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that
doctors rely on is flawed......he worries that the field of medical research is
so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might
be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a
problem...80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type)
turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized
trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized
trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently
manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good
science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask
researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable.
[Media March 2002] Dying medicine boss: 'Drug trials are pointless ... and unethical'
Why are Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer therapy not readily available in the U.S.? by G. Edward Griffin,
 For the desperately ill, trials of new drugs offer one last hope. But as this terrifying story shows, if it all goes wrong, you could be on your own
Eighty-five percent of clinical trials are now commercially funded, and the odds are four to five times greater that the commercially funded trials will conclude that the sponsor's drug is the treatment of choice compared with non commercially funded trials of exactly the same drugs, according to a lecture given at Harvard Medical School in October by Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Those studies are then bundled into review articles (often sponsored by the drug maker); presented at continuing medical education courses that are funded directly or indirectly by the drug maker; supported by "key opinion leaders," recognized experts who happen to be getting paid by the drug maker; incorporated into guidelines -- the majority of expert authors having financial ties to one or more of the drug companies making a drug being considered in the guidelines; and, of course, touted by the drug reps lining up to get some face time with the doctors, who -- according to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's research -- overwhelmingly find the information delivered by the reps up to date, useful and reliable."---JOHN ABRAMSON, M.D. 2009 Good for Business, Bad for Patients?
Whether a drug makes it to market simply only means that someone has had enough money to put it through, and pay the right politicians. That's all. It doesn't mean it works or it doesn't work....... we're very familiar with the people who developed the double-blind, placebo-controlled study. And we know what they know about medicine and science, and they all admit that they don't know anything about it. ......The problem with the placebo controlled, doubled-blind study is that you are using two human beings as controls against one another. There is no more out-bred species on Earth than two human beings. A person from the North Pole can procreate with a person from the South Pole, and can have an infant. There is no animal on Earth that is as out-bred as human beings, including two identical twins, they are not the same. Because, as soon as the zygote divides there are different positions, there's different antigens to which they are exposed. The bottom line is that these double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are run by people who don't know much about science. [1993 Interview with Dr. Alan Levin.] Modern Medicine and its Military Links
"Vera Hassner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, has been warning about such powers for years. The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select the subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which parts get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,' who they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she concludes. "They have it made."----Merck Move Shows Industry Adrift
I wrote that 100 page book a couple of years ago about controlled clinical trials because I got so tired of hearing the medical profession talking about the controlled clinical trial as the gold standard for proving drugs. The idea of the controlled clinical trial as being the standard is based on a completely false supposition - that you can assemble homogeneous groups of patients. We in homeopathy know that this is not possible. In allopathy they'll take a group of people and arbitrarily designate them as a homogeneous group. Then they'll give their medicines and placebos and see how many get well and how many don't get well, etc. The procedure is vicious at its very root. You can't get a homogeneous group of people no matter how hard you try and the rest is just window dressing. The ultimate effect is to favor the large pharmaceutical manufacturers at the expense of the small pharmaceutical manufacturers. The controlled trials are very expensive. They cost between the 10s and 100s of millions of dollars so that no small manufacturer can afford this, so only the big companies can put the new drugs on the market. What it really does is support the idea of monopoly in business. Harris Coulter Interview
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) increasingly approves cancer drugs without requiring that they be shown to prolong life. Indeed, FDA's approval standards have now become so lenient that in most instances the manufacturer of a drug only has to demonstrate that in clinical trials the drug performs better than a placebo in order to be confident of a smooth passage through the approval process. .......some kinds of cancer treatment have become the standard of care without ever having been evaluated in clinical trials. Many forms of radiation treatment, for example, have simply been "grandfathered in," - i.e., accepted by default largely on the basis of having been around for a long time. ......in many instances the relative merits of different kinds of radiation treatment, the limits of its usefulness and the extent of its effectiveness have never been clearly established through clinical trials. This has led to a situation where on the one hand the treatment is almost universally available, yet on the other hand there is very little solid evidence comparing the effectiveness of radiation to various other treatment approaches. [March 2008] OVERCOMING THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF RADIATION TREATMENT FOR CANCER Ralph Moss
[Neat isn't it.] Why are Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer therapy not readily available in the U.S.? The short answer is that these substances are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The full answer, however, is a bit more complex. The reason they do not carry approval is that they have not undergone the extensive FDA testing that all new drugs must pass before being approved for common use. That’s the law in the United States. This process takes years of research work, requires tens of thousands of pages of reports, and costs hundreds of millions of dollars. The only firms that can afford this are large pharmaceutical companies. Not even they will undertake such expense unless they can eventually make a profit through sales, and that means they must obtain a patent on the substance being tested. However, substances found in nature cannot be patented, only man-made chemicals and processes can. Since Laetrile and many other substances used in alternative-cancer treatments are found in nature, they cannot be patented. That means they will never be tested according to FDA protocol. Consequently, they will never be officially approved no matter how effective they may be. That is why you often hear it said that alternative cancer therapies are "unproven." That is a very misleading statement. They may not have been proven by FDA protocol, but many of them definitely have been proven as both safe and effective by actual clinical experience in the treatment of thousands of cancer patients. Unfortunately, until the laws are changed, the only officially approved substances we will ever have for the treatment of cancer in the United States are man-made, patented chemicals! G. Edward Griffin,
If you want to change it you change the law that establishes the need for double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the efficacy clause from the Harris amendment to the food and drug act, which Harris himself didn't even want. This was imposed by the FDA and the drug industry. This upped the ante and made a regulatory barrier. Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars to establish the safety of a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none of the small inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly hope to get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo where the best you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind of thing, and I know of a number of good scientists who have got IND's (Investigative New Drug Applications) to test drugs, but when you try to market the drug they will put you out of business, and Dr Burzynski is the prime example. Brilliant scientist, wonderful results in cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on the verge of federal indictment. Interview of Dr Ralph Moss, Ph.D.
System run by the medical cartel with the deceptive purposes of:
1. Using humans as guinea pigs to "test" one poison against another one.
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.
2. Keeping out non-cartel members by making the system too expensive, so only the big Corporations can afford the ante.
"If you want to change it you change the law that establishes the need for double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the efficacy clause from the Harris amendment to the food and drug act, which Harris himself didn't even want. This was imposed by the FDA and the drug industry. This upped the ante and made a regulatory barrier. Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars to establish the safety of a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none of the small inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly hope to get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo where the best you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind of thing, and I know of a number of good scientists who have got IND's (Investigative New Drug Applications) to test drugs, but when you try to market the drug they will put you out of business, and Dr Burzynski M.D. is the prime example. Brilliant scientist, wonderful results in cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on the verge of federal indictment." Interview of Dr Ralph Moss, Ph.D.
The ultimate effect is to favor the large pharmaceutical manufacturers at the expense of the small pharmaceutical manufacturers. The controlled trials are very expensive. They cost between the 10s and 100s of millions of dollars so that no small manufacturer can afford this, so only the big companies can put the new drugs on the market. What it really does is support the idea of monopoly in business. Harris Coulter Interview
3. Any non-cartel medicine can then be, to the ignorant, safely ignored and rubbished as it hasn't been through clinical trials. No non-patentable medicine will ever be trialled for obvious reasons, and the likes of Burzynski can't afford to.
4. Useless medicine gets on the market by controlling agencies such as the FDA with deceptions such as tumour shrinkage:
"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient."---Interview of Dr Ralph Moss, Ph.D.
and is used again and again even when they have proved and know it doesn't work:
"What you are about to read will shock you. It is a
story of oncologists lying to parents about the efficacy of their therapy and
using coercive tactics such as threats of court orders to take children and
submit them to treatments that they know are torturous and ineffective.......We
were told, not asked, but told that we had 30 days from Alexander’s surgeries to
start chemo. We were told that chemo would offer Alexander a good chance of
survival. We were told that he would be getting a new chemo protocol
with "state-of-the-art" drugs. And we were warned that if we did not bring
Alexander in for chemotherapy a court order would be forthcoming so that the oncologists
could take him from us and administer these poisons without our approval. We were lied to
and threatened so that oncologists could fill our son with deadly ineffective poisons that
simply shortened his life and made his last days on earth a living hell.
The oncologists did what they were trained to without challenging the death that surrounds their treatments. The FDA took away Alexanders freedom to use a non-toxic and potentially life-saving therapy. The drug companies received their chemotherapy profits. Alexander lost his life. And we have to live with the knowledge that we never gave our son a fighting chance to survive his disease." No Rights for a Child Diagnosed with Cancer------Raphaele & Michael Horwin
As you can see also with these Chemotherapy quotes. Works in some way for 5% of patients but is given to 50%. Go figure. Now you can see why the medical cartel is the biggest killer on the planet.
The Controlled Clinical Trial by Harris Coulter